Three Girls (BBC 9pm)

[ASauvingnonADay]

Looking forward to watching this tonight. Feel it might be one to watch with your teenagers..

Taking the perpetrators out of the equation, when analysing this case, and framing this case in terms of the primary factor being the girl's vulnerability, meaning they are not being listened to or believed, is problematic. What it leads to is aspects of the girl's background and behaviour being questioned and tackled in attempt to alleviate the problem instead of primarily tackling what causes men to perpetrate these crimes and communities to turn a blind eye. This would be similar to blaming women's clothing or drinking habits for rape.

All factors need to be tackled to combat this sort of crime.

Those girls could have come from almost any family situation where they were allowed to spend a large amount of time out, away from home / staying with friends or relatives (two of the girls spent a lot of time at their cousins). Tbh I used to stay over at friends at the weekends and there is always a point where you think that sort of thing could have easily happened, whatever background you come from.

The thing is Roses this thread is discussing a very specific case being shown in the TV drama. My understanding of the facts presented in the drama and subsequent interviews with the people involved, including the sex worker who was key to uncovering it, is that racism didn't come into it. The prejudice was all towards the girls and how they were treated and depicted. The police just didn't think the girls were worth anything. For me this has been the most shocking thing about the whole story - in a way I would find political correctness easier to understand. They had no problem accepting that these underage girls were having sex with all these taxi drivers and kebab shop owners, but thought they must be prostitutes and what could you expect. These vulnerable children were being abused and noone could see that - not because they were being politically correct, but because they didn't believe it. That's what this discussion is about - yes it is pretty grim that there seem to be various Asian gangs up and down the country taking advantage of girls just like the three in the drama and you may wish to conclude from this that Asians are more likely to take advantage of vulnerable young girls. That is a different discussion and we'd have to see evidence for that. But that long list of cases cut and pasted from the EDL website doesn't suggest that the police are too politically correct to arrest Asian - rather the reverse I would say. Whether or not those cases stand up in court comes down to juries believing the victims. It's not about what we as a society think about Asian men, but what we think about abused children and whether we think they only have themselves to blame because they look and behave a certain way.

This would be similar to blaming women's clothing or drinking habits for rape. I actually think it is exactly the same thing and exactly what happened in this case.

Great post Lilian

The thing is I think almost any young child would have found it impossible to cope with the situation those girls found themselves in. They could have come from, on the surface, a much more privileged background where they were allowed the freedom to spend time away from home overnight and found themselves in a similar situation. This is why this case cannot be entirely framed in terms of the girls not being listened to - although it is a big factor in being able to successfully prosecute. It cannot be forgotten that the perpetrators actually create this problem and cause a lot of vulnerabilities through their crimes.

As I see it, the availability of vulnerable victims does not in itself create crime. Making victims less vulnerable or less available does not tackle crime entirely. Part of tackling crime involves communities being prepared to expose it and tackle it amongst their members.

It cannot be forgotten that the perpetrators actually create this problem and cause a lot of vulnerabilities through their crimes Of course they do - that is their crime. That is why it is so scandalous that the girls are then vilified for their behaviour. One of things I learned from the Woman's Hour interview with Sara is that it is a myth that most of the girls who fall prey to the gangs are in care. She said that is simply not the case, but it helps people to comfort themselves with the thought it could never happen to their child.

I agree with Lilian. The racism problem came later. The first and most significant issue, which is the deepest and most upsetting is the view that the girls were slags, prostitutes, bought it on themselves.

We all agree that is the core problem. How the girls were seen. It continues today.

Ched Evans Rape case where she was grilled on her back ground, as if she was inviting it.

Frightening.

And episode 1 and 2 showed this.

And Dad saying to Peake, 'it's only your job, you don't really care, or at least you can go home. She gets left with it'. That is of course true. Social workers, police, no matter even if they are one of the caring ones, they go home.

Looking forward to episode 3.

Making victims less vulnerable or less available does not tackle crime entirely Victims are victims - they are not in any way to blame. What do you mean by making them less vulnerable or less available? The most important part of tackling crime in this case would be ensuring society sees the victims for what they are - victims - rather than trying to blame them or even criminalise them (as when they tried to charge Amber with procuring).

It was patronizing Rose because I meant it to be, in response to your post that tried to say I was making out that people had said that white men don't abuse children. Then went on to make out that cases (that involved white men) i'd skipped over - or whatever terminology you used - and then that I might not be aware of abuse by priests and nuns (believe me I am more than aware of this).

Then you went on to say, despite just saying I'd breezed over cases like Saville mentioned on the thread that the thread was about Asian rings (which it's not). I honestly think you haven't grasped that - nor what Lillian and I mean (she probably words things better than me I admit). Interested to know what strange assumptions you think I've made.

The programme is very much focusing on the fact the girls lives are meaningless for society and no one in authority wants to know because they are simply made life choices.

No I don't think a girl from a stable back ground could be as easily groomed, in as much as 'stable back ground' generally involves not frequently being out late at night at 14.

Grooming requires time: which is why children, who aren't vunrable in the sense they from chaotic backgroungs, can be groomed online by individuals (should they be allowed unmonitored access to the internet that is).

These children though might be from 'good families' and have the decency of being virgins so are more credible and listened to.

Girls from stable homelives tend to be seen as children; girls from chaotic homelives not.

and you may wish to conclude from this that Asians are more likely to take advantage of vulnerable young girls

who wishes to conclude this? who! do you? is this what your wrestling with?

who has said Asian men have more predilection than any other group to abuse girls.

Did you miss the part about long running threads on here about the high profile MP / rock star abuse cases round the elm guest house which were mainly white powerful men?

But that long list of cases cut and pasted from the EDL website doesn't suggest that the police are too politically correct to arrest Asian - rather the reverse I would say

the evidence that some people involved in this sorry saga from the beginning, is that they feared they would be labelled as racist and they encouraged some victims not to mention their attackers race. This has not come from the tv show, or the long list but facts as complied into the reviews that came out after the story broke. To try and explain why - these girls had such a hard time to be heard.

It's not about what we as a society think about Asian men, but what we think about abused children and whether we think they only have themselves to blame because they look and behave a certain way

Your right its not about what we think of Asian men.
but we need to understand the back ground and how and why these particular men abused, in large numbers. The report that Jiggly linked mentions lower sexual consent ages in some communities meaning the men didn't think raping under age girls was wrong. Where as white British men do know its wrong and are more likely to work alone because of the fear if too many people knew - someone would report them.

These men were working in large numbers in quite an open way - and understanding that is very important.

Part of tackling crime involves communities being prepared to expose it and tackle it amongst their members

This has been mentioned and discussed over and over again and what can we do to encourage people to speak out - when shame - fear of retaliation, being shunned etc are holding victims back.

The thing is I think almost any young child would have found it impossible to cope with the situation those girls found themselves in

Yes 100% how can any child fight against the might of a huge organised network, people who know your family, your friends can hang out on the streets, threaten you, are everywhere - and who know exactly what they are doing. This wasn't an accident that evolved and grew it was an organized well oiled machine. No one would ever know what they were stepping into. There are many cases of children from all sorts of backgrounds being mixed up in this sort of thing from all kinds of abusers.

As a society we do not place enough value on a childs life and the NSPCC is usually protesting about lenient sentences given out in child abuse cases.

The programme is very much focusing on the fact the girls lives are meaningless for society and no one in authority wants to know because they are simply made life choices

Yes of course, the program is also focusing on the large network of sex abusers using taxis and cafe and so on to abuse them and use food, drink and travel as a lure.

I think we all understand the side of the issues being the girls lives not being valued by society.
The thread was taking in all of this very happily until a poster - stupidly or deliberately happened to post more cases from an EDL website.

Then a sort of paranoia has set in lest we say that race in any shape or form was relevant here. And much repetition that white men abuse too and we cant take it that all Asian men abuse and so on.

I am afraid you will find actually no girl is totally safe from this sort of exploitation, and actually again if you had any interest in the whole case not just gleaning stuff from the TV show ( which is fine but your knowledge is limited here) many of the girls had families that were not chaotic, were not damaged and who went to the police and nothing was done.

No I don't think a girl from a stable back ground could be as easily groomed, in as much as 'stable back ground' generally involves not frequently being out late at night at 14.

Grooming requires time: which is why children, who aren't vunrable in the sense they from chaotic backgroungs, can be groomed online by individuals (should they be allowed unmonitored access to the internet that is).

These children though might be from 'good families' and have the decency of being virgins so are more credible and listened to.

Girls from stable homelives tend to be seen as children; girls from chaotic homelives not.

It is not beyond the imagination to think girls from privileged backgrounds, who have said they are staying at friends, for example, could still find themselves in this situation. Not many children would have been able to cope with the situation those girls found themselves in. I think to stress that more privileged children couldn't be groomed contributes to the continued 'othering' of children from backgrounds that are deemed more chaotic.

Of course, the girls in question should have been listened to and treated with respect, as victims, regardless of their background. However I think it is still important to also focus on tackling the issues which causes and allows groups within communities to perpetrate these crimes and for people to turn a blind eye.

Victims are victims - they are not in any way to blame. What do you mean by making them less vulnerable or less available? The most important part of tackling crime in this case would be ensuring society sees the victims for what they are - victims - rather than trying to blame them or even criminalise them (as when they tried to charge Amber with procuring).

I mean that the fact some children are shown to be vulnerable because of chaotic home lives means that the focus for tackling crime can be shifted towards tackling those vulnerabilities. Or removing the freedoms of children deemed vulnerable.

Whilst tackling vulnerabilities is good, vulnerabilities will always exist. Whilst we can put protection in place to prevent 'vulnerable' children encountering the wider society where these crimes occur, this does nothing to improve the quality of their lives.

What we need is for all of society to be safer. Which it would be if instead of turning a blind eye and protecting their members, communities were more outward looking and cared about groups other than the one they belong to.

This is the Lesley Gore message to all young girls in puberty.

'You don't own me'

And she's singing this decades after and still feeling the passion.

To all young girls out there who have been abused.

Chaotic homes? That could be anything.

It could be Ballet at 4 and then piano at 5. Home for dinner at 6 and homework at 7 and then bed at 8.30 after bath. Twice a week. Weekends are spent having fun!

Or it could be a perfectly well balanced home with an abusive daddy/father, who loves his daughters so much, he needs to express it. That leads to chaos in the daughter. The father knows the power he holds.

When I say, 'can be shifted', I mean this is a danger, not that this should happen!

What we need is for all of society to be safer. Which it would be if instead of turning a blind eye and protecting their members, communities were more outward looking and cared about groups other than the one they belong to. There has been no suggestion so far that the Asian community closed ranks to protect its members. The men were arrested and jailed. Anyone who did turn a blind eye and try to cover up would also be committing a crime. My point is there will always be criminals - which ever part of society they come from. We should all keep an eye out for one another. But most importantly we should help victims when they come forward and not try to blame them or twist their behaviour and use it as an excuse not to investigate. The best deterrent is to show that the law of the land is effective - to enforce the fact that a 13-year-old is not capable of giving consent for instance - to punish those who have tried to break the law and not allow them to wriggle out of it because their victim is somehow less worthy of our sympathy.

What makes me really angry about all of this is the solution. Bobbies on the street. It would take an army of hundreds of thousands of bobbies on the street to tackle this.

No. It's tackling patriarchy and misogyny. Stop calling young girls slags. And tackle poverty. End it.

To clarify claritytobeclear ( ) I said not as easily, not that they couldn't be. As it does need access to the child's presence - so yes at a friend's house would be a way.

There has been no suggestion so far that the Asian community closed ranks to protect its members. The men were arrested and jailed. Anyone who did turn a blind eye and try to cover up would also be committing a crime

The fact that this was not investigated immediately shows that this effectively happened. To clarify, I was talking about communities in general, not just the Asian community. Although the people in the immediate vicinity, to where crimes and the planning involved occurred, must have known something. There would have been more evidence if they had spoken up.

It is not beyond the imagination to think girls from privileged backgrounds, who have said they are staying at friends, for example, could still find themselves in this situation.

Or that Uncle 'insert name here' who gave you £XXX for xmas would want payback. Thankfully Uncle INH wants you all for himself. No other cousin is involved. Absolutely not!

It is not beyond the imagination to think girls from privileged backgrounds, who have said they are staying at friends, for example, could still find themselves in this situation.

Clarity 19:18pm 18.05.17

from watching the programme only (as this thread is in telly addicts), not on reading any other cases, reports etcetera, i found two things came across overwhelmingly.

1. that the girls weren't going to be believed due to their backgrounds and life experiences (hollie previously having had sex, the other girls being from chaotic backrounds).

1. that the perpetrators were asian men because in this case and in this programme that is what is shown.

i think that both points and any other points that any other viewer took away from this programme should be discussed equally within this thread because, as I said, this is in telly addicts and no one should dictate what someone has taken away from a programme or documentary.

If there is a certain aspect of the programme eg why these girls in particular with their backgrounds were being ignored or is there a higher number of instances of asian gangs abusing girls within society - then maybe discussing these topics solely would merit their own threads?

It was not investigated because young barely pubescent women of a certain family income are seen by the police as slags, prostitutes and madams. The Asian men who abused them knew this. Both in collusion but certainly not an amicable one.